By Jesse
Our neighbor is acting as a de facto developer since he owns the construction company that will be using SB 9 to split a lot in two and build two units on each lot. Turning a single-family lot into multi-family density. This is just outside the Transportation Priority Area so it does not justify increased density. Additionally it is within the Coastal Overlay Zone and Peninsula Community Plan. My dad will be reading the following speech at Thursday’s Peninsula Planning board:
I’m here to ask for your help opposing the proposed coastal development next door to me at 1855 Guizot Street (PRJ-1134704). This project is using the SB 9 lot-split pathway to partially demolish an existing single-family home, split a 0.16-acre lot in two, increase allowable floor area across the new lots, and build two houses, each with an attached ADU, creating four units where one home stands today.
SB 9 is often described as a law meant to expand housing opportunity, with guardrails to prevent displacement and abuse. But what’s happening here is the exact kind of “loophole” outcome that working coastal neighborhoods fear: a project that functions like a multi-unit infill development on a street that was planned, built, and historically regulated as single-family.
And it matters who’s doing it. The owner of 1855 Guizot is also the CEO of ECO Home Builders, Inc., the company building the project. That means this is not a typical homeowner adding a modest unit. This is a professional developer operation working through a homeowner-shaped opening in the law. Not to mention his two management companies registered to that address.
Even the courts are still wrestling with SB 9. A Superior Court judge previously ruled SB 9 unconstitutional as applied to certain charter cities, the State appealed, and the Court of Appeal later reversed and sent it back for reconsideration after the Legislature amended SB 9 language. Regardless of where that case ultimately lands, the point is simple: this law is still being argued over because its real-world impacts are not small, especially in well-established single-family neighborhoods like ours.
We also live in the coastal overlay zone. In 2022, the California Coastal Commission issued guidance emphasizing that SB 9 does not supersede the voter-approved Coastal Act and that, aside from public-hearing requirements, Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program protections still apply. In other words: SB 9 doesn’t wipe away coastal neighborhood protections, it must be harmonized with them.
That brings me to the plans this Board helped shape. The Peninsula Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan adopted in 1987 reflect the Coastal Act’s purpose in places like ours. Figure 7 and Figure 7A identify protected single-family areas and low-density expectations.
And here’s the back-of-the-napkin math: the Community Plan designates roughly 5–9 dwelling units per acre in this single-family area. On a 0.16-acre lot, that’s basically one home. A simple lot split that produces two homes is about 12.5 units per acre. If SB 9 is used to push to four units, that’s 25 units per acre. That is not “consistent with the plan.” That is a fundamental change in intensity.
Finally, the real-world impacts: our streets weren’t designed for this scale. The parking impacts alone will be horrendous, especially on a corner lot where daylighting restrictions already remove 40 linear feet of curb space on this corner lot. Add another driveway, add three more units, and the problem compounds. The proposed project doesn’t lie within the Transportation Priority Area where the City claims this kind of density belongs.
So here is my ask: even if it isn’t required, I’m asking this Board to do what it can do, formally urge the City to deny this project or require substantial changes so it does not create a walling effect, exceed single-family intensity and density by allowing a lot split, or break the visual rhythm and character of the block. And I’m also asking you to press the City to use every tool still available in the coastal zone, including insisting on consistency with the adopted Community Plan and Local Coastal Program.
Because if anyone here thinks this won’t reach them, they’re wrong. If a single-family house can be partially demolished, split in two, and turned into four units next door to me, it can happen next door to you. Stand up for our protected single-family neighborhoods now or maybe this same developer will buy a single-family home on your block three years from now.
Here is the City’s link to the notice
There goes the neighborhood…
This is a nightmare for every owner who occupies their single family home.
No doubt this property was purchased in 2022 for $1.5 Mil (they paid more than the asking price) probably with the thought of some development in the future.
The home to the rear will not only have multiple units next door but will loose privacy and most if not all of their view.
Give consideration that if you do not like/agree the developers plan – be sure not to hire ECO Home Builders
This SB 9 is a horrific proposal that can change the the whole reason for zoning laws that set rules for what can be built and where, which results in some sort of harmony within a community which is so much a part of San Diego.
Also when developing multi units years ago parking for each units was always required which today seems to of been abolished, trying to park on the street in OB presently is a nightmare, this project will place probably at least 6 more cars on the street. Sad what SD is turning into, the next Santa Monica Beach. Next we will have parking meters in coastal residential areas.
Truly sad! Well said. I’ve been stationed on the East Coast twice now and hated the density and parking. In Philly, it was not uncommon for people to get into fist fights over parking and people putting cones in front of their house to “reserve their parking”.
I’m all about increased ownership opportunities and to increase housing supply. Let’s remove regulations in neighborhoods with infrastructure designed for high density. Lets be smart about this. Have you been to Mission or Pacific Beach lately? OB and the Peninsula simply don’t have the physical layout for the infrastructure required to support this density. Driving into or out of OB and the Peninsula is terrible at certain times already.
I don’t think people understand there’s a reason why certain neighborhoods are so desirable. Is the goal to make everyone have to live in a crappy neighborhood? Go live on the East Coast for a few years, come back, and let me know if you still think its a good idea to allow development on this scale in single-family neighborhoods.
Just found out from a neighbor who has talked to current occupants/tenants that the owner no longer occupies the home. The home currently has renters. City form DS-3063 Declaration: Eligibility and Acknowledgement of Restrictions Related to Senate Bill 9 would have required them to certify that “There are one or more existing dwelling units on the Premises, and the Project does not propose the demolition or alteration of any of the types of affordable or RENTAL DWELLING UNITS specified by Cal. Govt Code §65852.21.”
The Zillow page for that address shows it being on the market for rent on 01NOV25. Seems worth looking into.
I really hope they do something about this. Can you imagine if every lot on the street did the same thing? It would affect parking in a half mile radius. This should not be allowed!
The city only looks at the additional income from property tax that the 2 new homes with ADU’s will generate for the city, the city needs the income to pay for the 4 city employees it takes to fix a pothole, and pay for police abuse lawsuits, the averag ecity employee makes $117,000/annually, so city does not care what you think at all.
Chris Needham